keywords-explorer-related-terms

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering and sorting options' and hints at output types ('keyword metrics and related terms'), but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a prerequisite instruction that might be better placed elsewhere, slightly disrupting flow. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured to separate usage notes from functional description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, output structure, or behavioral traits. While it states the purpose, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without external documentation, especially with the high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters—it only vaguely references 'filtering and sorting options' without detailing what 'select', 'country', 'where', etc., mean. This leaves all parameters undocumented, severely hindering correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns keyword metrics and related terms... for a given keyword or keyword list, with filtering and sorting options.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('keyword metrics and related terms'), and scope ('also rank for' and 'also talk about' keywords). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which is a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keywords-explorer-matching-terms' or 'keywords-explorer-overview'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to siblings are included, leaving the agent with little context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.